21 December 2011

They Say You Can Judge A Man By His Endorsements

Most people already know that Ron Paul refused to endorse John
McCain in the 2008 general election. While I don’t necessarily agree
with that decision, especially from a contender for the GOP nominee, I
can certainly understand it. Lord knows I hated every nice thing I had
to say about John McCain and wasn’t entirely pleased about pulling the
lever for him (which is a dramatic understatement). Most people assume
that Paul endorsed Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, which is
partially true. However, that is not the entire story. Paul also
endorsed three other candidates.

The first of those was Chuck Baldwin. I don’t really know a lot about Baldwin except that he has been on record early and often in support of the proposition that the South should have won the Civil War.
This sort of thing would ordinarily disqualify most normal people from
endorsing Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is not most normal people. And
given what most Ron Paul supporters seem willing to forgive, a little
Confederate sympathy (or even a lot of Confederate sympathy) seems like small potatoes.

The fourth and final candidate Ron Paul endorsed for President was
Ralph Nader. Yes, the same Ralph Nader who was so far to the left on
economic matters that he could see no difference between Al Gore and
George W. Bush. The same Ralph Nader who also longs for the day when the last vestiges of capitalism have died in America. Nader, you remember was the guy who made running as the Green Party candidate famous.

Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and
limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well,
you see, they signed a document:

Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four
candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls
for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and
investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.

You see, despite a lengthy and public history of supporting massive
government expansion and infringement upon personal liberties, and
despite running on a party platform that explicitly calls for the
massive expansion of Government welfare, these people would clearly have
been better at shrinking the government than the Republicans on the
basis of signing this absurd pledge. To be fair, Paul was probably just
following the Golden Rule here – after all, Paul had just spent the last
two years being a truther in front of truthers and denying trutherism in front of the media,
so he doubtless was extending the sort of blind eye towards Nader and
McKinney’s insanity that he wished everyone else would turn towards his.

For whatever his failings as a Presidential candidate and
conservative (and they were legion), no reasonable person would say that
John McCain was worse than any of these clowns. It was one thing for
Paul to not endorse McCain – but we have to ask what sort of person affirmatively supports anti-American avowed socialists and confederate sympathizers over a Republican?

The answer: Someone who, like Howard Dean, hates Republicans and everything they stand for so why would anyone voting in the Republican primaries vote for someone that hates them and their Party?